ArticleEClinicalMedicine2024
Asthma diagnosis: a comparison of established diagnostic guidelines in adults with respiratory symptoms.
Article in EClinicalMedicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- A Multilevel Redox-Based Prognostic Model for Asthma Severity: From Genotype to Serum Biomarkers.Biomedicines · 2026Review
- Exhaled breath volatiles for asthma diagnosis: discovery and validation in untreated but symptomatic patients.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Global Initiative for Asthma Updates for Diagnosing Asthma in Adults.JAMA network open · 2026Article
- What do patients think about home-based testing for better asthma diagnosis? Insights from a qualitative study.BMJ open · 2026Observational
- Assessing diagnostic accuracy for asthma with home spirometry in primary care.NPJ primary care respiratory medicine · 2025Article
- Examining the diagnostic validity of the ISAAC asthma questionnaire among participants from Singapore and Malaysia.Asia Pacific allergy · 2025Article
- Differential Immune Cell Infiltration in Eosinophilic and Non-Eosinophilic CRS: Correlations With Clinical, Endoscopic, and Radiological Findings.International forum of allergy & rhinology · 2025Article
- Exploring the Potential Association Between Inhaled Corticosteroid and Face Aging Risk: A Mendelian Randomization Study.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Exercise Recommendations and Practical Considerations for Asthma Management-An EAACI Position Paper.Allergy · 2025Article
- BTS/NICE/SIGN guideline for asthma 2024: Diagnosis, monitoring and chronic asthma management. How does this compare to GINA 2024?NPJ primary care respiratory medicine · 2025Article
- Time for the lens to focus on diagnostic algorithms in asthma.EClinicalMedicine · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Considerable variability exists between asthma diagnostic guidelines. We tested the performance characteristics of the European Respiratory Society (ERS), the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) and the Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) guidelines for the diagnosis of asthma in adults. Methods: In this prospective observational study (ISRCTN-11676160, May 2019-June 2022), participants referred from primary care with clinician-suspected asthma underwent comprehensive investigation including: spirometry, bronchodilator reversibility, fractional exhaled nitric oxide, peak expiratory flow variability, bronchial challenge testing with methacholine and mannitol, and responsiveness to inhaled corticosteroid therapy. Results were reviewed by a panel of asthma specialists to determine asthma diagnosis (reference standard) and compared to each diagnostic test and the ERS, NICE and GINA diagnostic algorithms (index tests). The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive and negative predictive values were calculated. Findings: One hundred and forty adults were enrolled and 118 given a definitive diagnostic outcome [75 female; mean (SD) age 36 (12) years; 70 (59%) with asthma] and included in the analysis. Sensitivity of individual tests was poor (15-62%), but they provided good specificity at the most stringent thresholds (range: 88-100%). The sensitivity/specificity of ERS, NICE and GINA was 81/85%, 41/100% and 47/100%, respectively. Concordance between guidelines was only moderate (Cohen's Kappa 0.45-0.51). Interpretation: Current guidelines for the diagnosis of asthma in adults provide either excellent specificity but low sensitivity (GINA and NICE) or only reasonable sensitivity and specificity (ERS). All guidelines therefore have limitations with regards to their clinical application; new guidelines are needed but should be tested prospectively before roll out. Funding: This work was supported by the Manchester NIHR Biomedical Research Centre (BRC) (grant no. BRC-1215-20007, and NIHR203308), Asthma UK/Innovate (grant no. AUK-PG-2018-406), GSK ID 212474 and North West Lung Centre Charity.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.